I Pledge to Simplify

     The Pledge of Allegiance continues to be a topic of heated debates. The sticking point is the word "God." This can be resolved quickly if we take into consideration another word in the Pledge; "Liberty." If, during the recitation, we are pledging to honor the liberty of our fellow citizens then we must allow everyone the agency to determine which god they honor, if any at all. If you adhere to atheism, just remain silent during the phrase "Under God." If you refer to God by another name, freely say that name, "Under Allah... Vishnu...Jesus...etc." Being allowed to freely and openly aver your choice of a god or remain silent during this particular phrase is paramount to remaining an indivisible nation.

Bellamy's handwritten draft of Pledge of Allegiance

(http://rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/1779)

     "Indivisible" is perhaps the most significant word in the Pledge. Written by Francis Bellamy (a Christian Socialist) and first published on September 8, 1892, the original version of the Pledge had no mention of God; nor did it mention the United States. Bellamy was affected greatly by the American Civil War and was prompted to write the Pledge, specifically to include not only the word "indivisible," but the phrase "one nation." The revised version in 1923 added (among other grammatical changes) "the United States of America." It was not until 1954 under the perceived threat of Communism that "Under God" was incorporated into the Pledge. This again brings me to my confusion when people say they want the "Old America" back yet at the same time want God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Personally, I would rather go back to 1923 than 1954; I'd love to go to a Speakeasy and try the Charleston. 
     If we are to stay one, indivisible nation, we must address conflicts such as this collectively. The best part of being American is that we are each entitled to our opinions. That being the case, disagreements and opposing views are guaranteed to ensue. To differ, disagree, and vary in opinion is fine; it is actually wonderful as if we all keep our minds open, new ideas will follow. Opposing each other with closed minds creates divisions and that is exactly what we are pledging not to do! Conversations, not arguments, are conducted with open minds and result in wonderful, new ideas. Let us then respect our neighbor's liberty and discuss guidelines under which we will remain an indivisible nation.
   

Change Exposes Cowards

     Poorly worded postings on Facebook are fodder for this blogger. One that caught my eye recently asked that "God Bless the Old America." So many things are wrong here. First, which God?  As there are roughly 5,000 gods worshiped in the world, this is very exclusionary. Let me just say, in an effort to give you a better understanding of my position, I believe in God; my own version of God. If I thought about it for any length of time, I'd say I'm a Deist. That being said, given the source of the post, I am guessing it's the Christian version of God. 
     In the post I saw, there was a U.S. flag in the background. Using my well-honed detective skills, I concluded that the America God was being asked to bless, was the United States of America and not one of the two continents once inhabited by indigenous people. Now that I understood which God and which America, I just had to decipher the meaning of "old." The U.S. is now as old as it has ever been. By the time you finish reading this, it will be even older. If the person who posted this wants to go back in time, he really wants God to bless the Young America. Now, that makes sense! After all, when a living entity (which is exactly what a country is) is young, she makes mistakes; lots of them. The young America did need some supernatural guidance as she was wrought with mistakes; read the Articles of Confederation or an early draft of the Constitution, or I don't know, think about slavery. As the U.S. has gotten older, through the acts of courageous men and women who fought and died (right here at home), this country has corrected her mistakes. Why then, does anyone want to go back to a former time when so many people were denied so much? The answer is, fear.
     This one innate entity has denied so many so much. People that wish for a Utopian past are afraid of the changes that threaten their power. A wish for an imaginary Utopian society, by the way, is a basic tenet of Fascism. If someone wants to go back to a former society, we must ask how far back we should go. Shall we go back to the 80's when people were dying of AIDS in droves and the Reagan administration ignored pleas for government funding for research? Perhaps a decade before when we had hostages in Iran, a secret war with Laos, bombings in Cambodia, and Watergate? Or the 60's so we can see the pictures from Kent State (1970) anew? Eisenhower's 50's brought the Interstate system and suburbia yet left the urban poor in neglected slums so white collar workers could have 2 cars and washing machines. The 40's provided us with the horrors of nuclear bombs and a World War. How bout the 30's when kids rode the rails so their parents had one less mouth to feed because a quarter of the nation was unemployed?
     Perhaps we should go back 86 years from today, October 29, 1929. The Great Crash. This occurred due to more than a decade of overproduction and speculation. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about time travel. I'd love to go back and see Bogie walking down the street in a trench coat and fedora. I'd love to sit in a Speakeasy and have a drink with an Irish cop. That all looks so fun...on a movie screen. Ever watch an old movie and see an African American as anything but a servant? 
     It is evident to me that the person who made this FB post wants to go back to an idealized, white-Christian America because that is what makes him feel safe. Safety is great but it doesn't let you go anywhere. The changes we are seeing in our society are exposing the cowards who proclaim to love this country. To love something is to nurture it and watch it grow into something of which one can be proud. Cast your fears aside and be amazed.

Take Our Country Back???

     Recently I saw a Facebook post that said, "Let's take our country back!" Not being very bright, I was immediately confused. I broke the sentence down and came up with the following: "Let's" is the contraction of Let Us. Who constitutes "us?" Further, there can only be an us is there is an opposing group labeled, them. Next is the word, "take." You can only take something you do not have. "Our" is the possessive for the country that belongs to the us group. Now, to take something "back" you had something you no longer possess and want to regain that something, in this case an entire country. In sum, Them took a country from Us, and now Us wants it back. Hmmm, quite a pickle.
     In order to resolve this, my feeble brain concluded that we must first identify us and them. The country in question, of course, is The United States. That is the simple part. My confusion arises when trying to discern who belongs to the us group. You see, once that group is identified, everyone else becomes them. The person who posted this inane command on Facebook is a white, Christian, heterosexual male. Although this is a strong lead as to who believes themselves to be the rightful "owners" of this country, I do not subscribe to the belief that; a) this man originated the post, nor b) all people fitting the above description feel as though they are the dominant, us. 
     I then switched my strategy to trying to uncover the identity of them. Since this group now has the country, it seemed much easier. That being said, I used what little deductive skills I possess to reach the following conclusion: Them has the country; Americans have the country; therefore, the them group consists of Americans. Huh, how about that? The opposing group (us) can only be made up of people other than Americans. Who are these people and why do they want to take my country away?
     Yes, I am a them! And I hope the people who support the above mentioned FB post understand that, "It is not in numbers but in unity, that our great strength lies." (Thomas Paine, Common Sense) Dividing a nation is not a solution in addressing her problems. We did that once and more than 628,000 Americans lost their lives in a vain attempt to assert supremacy. All of those who deem they belong to the us group are all to fond of (mis)using the tenets of the Founders; the one deemed greatest is George Washington. I humbly ask that they deeply consider his words, "it is of infinite [emphasis mine] moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union."(Washington, "Farewell Address, 1796)